HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/87TAPE #457
JUN 4 1987
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
#0011
#0031
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 1987
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers,
239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washindton,- Wednesday, June 10,
1987, at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Spencer Homing
presiding. Council' members present were Mottie Dawkins,
Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Mary Lou Long, A1Colvin,
Russ Johnson, Shirley Marry Crutcher and Lon Overson.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Lorna Corrigan and
Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Homing with Reverend Win Swanson, Interim
Pastor of Church of the Nazarene giving the Invocation.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting held June 3, 1987, #AB87-162
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/WARRANTS REGISTER
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as
required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement
claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been
recorded on a listing which has been made available to the
Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on June 10, 1987, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: RegUlar Warrants numbering #29833,
#29834 and #29840 through #29962 in the total amount of
$58,666.87.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Anita Sanford presented the 1987 Little Britches Rodeo
Court. Each girl announcing their sponsor and shared
upcoming events scheduled for the rodeo, which will be held
June 19 -21.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Stan Christensen, 419 Plum, provided Council members with a
letter 'which concerned placement of the podium in the
Council Chamber and the need for a better "public address"
system. Also, he questioned how legally Don Cundiff could
become Police Chief before Duane Christensen ever had his
trial on criminal charges brought against him and requested
a reply in writing before Don Cundiff's retirement.
Ron Nelson, 6816 Kitsap- Ron's Fruit Stand, expressed his
concern that City officials are trying to run him- out of
business and he does not understand why he is being hassled.
He stated he would work cooperatively with the City to over
come any problems'that may exist but he is of the opinion
that the City does not have a basis for their actions and
has engaged an attorney to respond on his behalf.
Ruth Davies, 1511 Park Avenue, stated-her opposition to
renaming of Evergreen Park and suggested that the City put
effort into maintaining and upgrading the park for the
benefit of the community and not waste time and effort in
trying to rename something that has historical significance
to the City of Bremerton.
TAPE #457
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 2 of 83
COD'NCIL MEMBER RRPORTS
Mr. 0vetson stated he was involved with a Block Watch
Program noting that those involved were more aware as to
what was happening in their neighborhood and getting better
acguainted with neighbors. Also, Officer Ted Johnson
provided excellent training.
Mr. Crutcher had received numerous calls on the issue of
possibly renaming Evergreen Park and all calls were opposed
to such action.
Mr. Collins stated that the main toRic of discussion at the
Council Operations Committee meeting, held prior to Council,
was contract for operations of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which should come before Council the last week of
June. Also, Mr. John Poppe, new Compliance Officer was
introduced-at that time. Mr. Don Pratt, Planning Director
provided the committee with an explanation regarding recent
ruling by the Supreme Court relating to land use.
Mrs. Lonq stated she had met with Mr. and Mrs. Stan
Christensen in their home and reviewed materials researched
and gathered by them relative to their son, Duane
Christensen, and felt the City Attorney's office should
review this material and respond to the Christensen's as
requested earlier in the meeting. Also, she was giving
serious consideration to the Secretary of State's letter of
invitation to participate in a "people-to-people" visit to
the Soviet Union.
Mr. Colvin acknowledged receipt of Mr. Christensen's
letter. He artended a scholarship awards event sponsored by
the Philippine Women's club and was impressed with the
quality of students receiving awards.
Mr. Johnson expressed his concern about changing an existing
name of a park or facility and suggested that future parks,
facilities, etc., be considered when the community and/or
City wishes to name something after an honored citizen.
Mr. Horninq is continuing to work toward lowering the PSCOG
fees, however, it is an uphill battle but there may be some
relief in the near future.
6A - SURPLUS OF CITY VEHICLES, #AB87-163
The City has several vehicles which are surplus to present
needs. A declaration of surplus is necessary to allow
disposal.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, requested that Vehicle #1437 be
deleted from the surplus list as a use for it had been
found.
Roy McGinnis, 2711 Maple Avenue, question why some vehicles
had not been disposed of previously as some had been sitting
for over a year and felt that information relating to
mileage is important data that should be available on each
vehicle to help determine if it would be cost effective to
repair and/or maintain them. He questioned prior Council
action to surplus a street sweeper and why it was again
before Council. Mr. Hanna explained the street sweeper
was idled after it was determined it would not be cost
effective to maintain and was used only on an interim basis
when the other sweeper was not available; and that some of
TAPE #457
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 3 of ~3
#1402
the vehicles were parted out for repair of other vehicles,
some had structural damage which would not make them safe to
drive and the vehicles in question did have high mileage.
M/S/C(Coilins/Crutcher) to declare vehicles numbers. 18,
1420, 1422, 1446, 1448, 1469, 1789, 1438, 1836, 3028 surplus
and direct that they be sold in the best interest of the
City.
Vote: In Favor: Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel,
Homing, Collins, Johnson
Oppose: Long, Colvin
Mr. Johnson questioned utilizing one of the older scooters
at the rifle range, noting potential costs and manpower to
maintain. Mr. Waibel stated it would probably handled on a
volunteer basis as was the other work done at the rifle
range by Police Department personnel.
#1894
6B - INSURANCE POOLING, #AB87-164
Due to large premium increases and severe reductions in
insurance coverage, the City has been exploring a variety of
risk financing options. We have two alternatives: pre-fund
our liability exposures and insure our property exposures
independently or join a regional pool comprised of the City,
Kitsap County and Kitsap Transit and pre-fund the pool
jointly. A report was presented at the June I Council study
session and outlined the basic concepts associated with the
regional insurance pool.
The Puget Sound Council of Governments has requested a
decision on the City's willingness to participate in this
pool as well as a monetary commitment to fund consultant
services. ~
Peq~V Lesser, Risk Manager, stated the proposal was the same
as was presented to Council at their Study Session and
supports in concept the formation of, a regional pool
comprised of the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County and Kitsap
Transit to finance the property and liability exposures of
these three entities. Council's approval to expanding
$7,000.00 would solidify the City's commitment to proceed
with consultant services to finalize the approach.
Mr. Johnson stated he would go along with the concept but
would not support the program if the City would have to pay
45~ of the total cost.
Mrs. Lona was opposed to proceeding with this next phase and
supported taking the issue before the citizens for a ballot
vote as to whether or.not they wish to accept the liability.
M/S/C(Overson/Collins) approves in concept an insurance
pooling relationship with Kitsap Transit, Kitsap Coumty and
other public entities in Kitsap County. This approval is
subject to final review and acceptance by Council of the
proposed interlocal agreement, by-laws, operating policies
and administrative procedures developed for the pool as well
as Council acceptance of the costs of pool participation and
the methods to be used for determining these costs. Funds,
not to 'exceed $7,000.00 shall be available from the Risk
Management Fund to pay 1/3 of the cost of necessary
consultant service.
Vote: In Favor: Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel
Homing, Collins, Colvin, Johnson
Oppose: Long
TAPE..#457
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 4 of 83
6C - CONTRACT - DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SLUDGE, #AB87-165
The City of Bremerton's Purchasing Agent at the request of
the Wastewater Utility advertised in 1986 for qualified
firms to submit proposals for the management and disposal of
the City Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester sludge. The
sludge is a by-product of secondary wastewater treatment and
require periodic removal and disposal.
The City received two proposals from qualified firms. The
proposals were reviewed by the City's Selection Committee
and consulting engineering firm with a recommendation that a
professional services contract be awarded to Agri-Tech, Inc.
of Albany, Oregon. The total cost for disposal is
$36,12/1000 gallons for an estimated annual cost of
$155,320.00.
Bill DuffV, Utilities Manager, stated approximately 4
.million gallons of sludge is .generated per year which much
be disposed of in an environmentally sensitive manner. Of
the two bids received Agri-Tech, Inc., was the most
responsive and the lowest price. They are dedicated to the
beneficial use of sludge - taking the product and dewatering
it, then transporting it to the Kitsap Landfill, mixing it
with wood chips, letting it set for a period of time and
then using it as a soil to cover the landfill. Mr. DuffV
explained that there is a contract for disposal of the
sludge and a Change Order which defines the terms and
operations of the disposal of the sludge. This was necessary
as the current supplier is utilizing sludge in a forest
application process and when proposals were received a
little different scope of activities evolved, which was
beyond the original scope of the proposal. Therefore, that
generated the Change Order to insure that we would be
operating within correct parameters of the activities.
Mr. Johnson questioned why one area of the contract calls
for a minimum of five calendar years and then in another
part of the contract it states five years for dewatering and
six years for disposal of sludge. Mr. DuffV explained that
as part of the process there is a period of time where the
mixture of sludge and wood chips must "set" before being
applied which would account for the longer period for
disposal.
Mr. Johnson questioned inclusion of default charges in the
contract. Mr. DuffV explained that the contract can be
terminated and attached to the contract is a "letter of
credit" which allows us to collect up to one years operating
cost. Mr. Johnson asked what if the firm performs only
marginally. Mr. Duffy stated there is provision in the
processing of the sludge that 95% of the solids be removed,
should he go below 90% there is a penalty clause - $200.00
per occurrence. Mr. Johnson asked if the "letter of credit"
replaced the Washington Performance and Payment Bond? Mr.
DuffV stated yes, bonding of this kind of activity has been
difficult and Mr. Ray has. proposed a "letter of credit"
with conditions subject to the contract, where should he
fail to perform his 3ob we can go in and perform it and bill
his bank. Mr. Cotvin questioned the limit of the"'letter
of credit" and what dollar amount. Mr. Duffy stated it
would have a one year limit at a cost of $155,000.00.
TAPE #457
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 5 of
#2460
#2595
Mr. Johnson asked about the inclusion of the erecting a
"Butler" building that is suppose to' look like the rest of
the plant. Mr. DuffV stated the building is not up yet but
it will be a steel type structure which must blend
aesthetically and must be approved prior to building.
Mr. Johnson raised the issue of "odor". Mr. Duffy stated
there are provisions, the dewatering process would be done
inside the building and a carbon vessel will be on the
building which will allow force ventilation. Mr. Overson
asked if the process is being changed to help control odor
and how does the cost compare to how we are currently
handling the sludge. Mr. Duffy explained the processing is
a dewatering instead of transporting it in liquid form and
currently costing about $200,000 per year for management.
Under the new contract there will be a $50,000.00 cost
savings over current costs.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Waibel) to approve professional services
contract for disposal of Wastewater Treatment Plant sludge
by Agri-Tech, Inc., and Change-Order #1 reflecting the terms
and conditions of operations and authorize the Mayor to sign
said documents subject to Administrative Policy and
Procedure.
7A - ORDINANCE #4112 (SECOND READING) ESTABLISHING
COMPENSATION FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT AND CONFIDENTIAL OFFICE ASSISTANT
SENIOR, #AB87-159
M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ordinance #4112, on second
reading, establishing the compensation and benefits of
Confidential Executive Secretary to the Mayor, Legislative
Assistant to City Council and the Personnel Confidential
Office Assistant Senior.
Vote: In Favor: 0vetson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel,
Homing, Collins, Colvin, Johnson
Oppose: Long
#2657
?B - ORDINANCE #4113 (SECOND READING) NON-UNION MANAGEMENT
BENEFITS UPDATE, #AB87-160
MarOerV Holsather, Personnel Generalist, stated there was a
request to change two lines, one in Section 1A, second
sentence to read: "All non-union managers are afforded these
standard benefits except that if an employee is covered by
other medical insurance and/or' dental insurance, he may
elect to recover up to fifty percent (50%) of the employee
only cost to the City in lieu of using the insurance"; and
Section 1B, second paragraph, second sentence to read:
"Employees must sign a "Release of Medical Review" form and
have results of medical review forwarded to the Personnel
Director to be entitled to this benefit"
M/S/C(Johnson/Waibel) to approve Ordinance #4113, on second
reading, setting forth a benefit plan for non-union
management personnel and amending of the Bremerton Municipal
Code Chapter 2.50, including changes to Section A, second
sentence changing the words "must accept" to "are afforded",
and Section 1B, second paragraph, second sentence changing
the word "Records" to "Review".
Vote: In Favor: Johnson, Colvin, Collins, Homing,
Waibel, Crutcher, Dawkins, Overson
Oppose: Long
TAPE #457
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 6 of 13
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE R-2 TO B-2; LOCATED AT AND
ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF 303 6TH STREET, APPLICANT: SANCHEZ,
PAULSON, MITCHELL AND LAURIE, OWNER: RONALD AND LILLIAN
ROSS, #AB87-166
On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 8 to 0
recommending approval to fezone from R-2 to B-2, lots 33 and
34 located along the south side of Sixth Street between
Pleasant and Highland Avenues. The original request by the
applicant was a fezone to B-3. In addition, the Planning
Commission further recommends that lots 35, 36, 37 and 38
located adjacent to and west of lots 33 and 34 be rezoned
from B-3 to B-2.
President Hornino asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict
of Interest" question with all Council remaining except Mr.
Homing ~nd Mr. Dawkins who stepped down.
Mr. Collins, Acting President, requested Mr. Pratt, Planning
Director, to give a briefing on the recent Supreme Court
decision relating to land uses. Mr. Pratt stated he had not
yet seen the text of the decision so specific information is
not available, however, a great deal of discussion amongst
the legal and planning professions had taken place. He
stated the effect of this decision will be more political
than legal, by that I mean what people, the community and
what the decision makers within the community...Planning
Commissioners and City Council Members perceive that
decision to say through the headlines and people making rash
conclusions as to what is being said through the headlines
and how that perception affects your votes on land use
issues such as on specific fezones and adopting a new Zoning
Ordinance will be the major affect. Mr. Pratt cited a
headline "Ruling backs the owners on property", stating that
it is not exactly true, but it is a good way to explain a
long text into three or four words. Secondly, what the
Court, via the newspapers, specifically said in a limited
basis, first, when a 'government renders a property useless
through some kind of action there may be an opportunity for
the landowner to receive compensation. 'A property can be
rendered useless by zoning it so it can't be used, and
several other ways. Secondly, the Court specifically says
"to prove a taking in court the owner must show the
government is prohibiting the use not just limiting the
use". Thirdly, the decision does not affect either of the
actions before Council at this time in their present form
nor does it affect any recent or upcoming actions in the
City of Bremerton.
Ron Huff, Planning Department, stated this is a request for
a fezone from R-2 and B-3 to C-2. Property is located at
303 6th Street, approximately a 5,000 ft. site. Applicant
owns or has interest in lots west of site (Lots 35, 36,
38) and combined with Lots 33 and 34 would like to build
an office structure for their own offices and possibly lease
out to other businesses. To do this, the applicant needs
to change zoning from residential to commercial and this
would also make all properties on south side of Sixth Street
conforming with each other and also conforming with the
Comprehensive Plan, which shows this area as commercial.
The main issue is the location of the property, at the
southwest corner of the Highland area, a significant area
that the City would like to preserve the neighborhood and
architectural characteristics. The house on the property
was identified as a contributing, but not a key structure,
to the characteristics of the neighborhood. The applicant
intends to remove the structure. The City does not have any
TAPE #457
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page
TAPE #458
way in its ordinances to preserve any historical
structures.. Mr. Huff stated the Planning Commission's
response was to recommend 'a B-2 zone for lots 33 and 34
which would provide the types of uses the applicant would
like to develop on the property, which also helping to
preserve the character of the property. The Planning
Commission's recommendation included lots 35,36,3? and 38,
rezoning them from B-3 to B-2.
Mr. Overson and Mrs. Lon~ questioned property across Sixth
Street which is zoned R-2 and currently used as a parking
· lot. Mr. Huff could not respond to that question without
background information. Don Pratt, Planning Director,
stated there are legal ways for a parking lot be in an R-2
zone.
Mr. Colvin asked if changing the zone from B-S to B-2 for
Lots 35, 38, 37 and 38 was not downgrading them. Mr. Huff
stated this action was not part of the original application,
but is a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Lone questioned what element of downgrading Lots
35,36,37 and 38 to B-2 would preserve the characteristic of
the Highland neighborhood. Mr. Huff used an overlay to
demonstrate the difference in setbacks and height
requirements of a B-2 and'B-3 zone, pointing out that the
Planning Commission felt applicant could build their
building under the B-2 zone, in this way the size and height
of a structure would be more in keeping with the character
of the neighborhood.
Anna Laurie, an owner of the property and representing the
Law Firm of Sanchez, Paulson, Mitchell and Laurie, pointed
out the intended use of the property would be to construct
an office building, however, she did note that in the event
they did not proceed as planned and sold the property to
someone else, the new owner could then construct whatever
came within the B-3 zoning criteria. The original
application included only two lots, 33 end 34, which .are
now zoned R-2 and applicant wishes to have rezoned to B-3.
Lots 35,38,3?,38 ~were not part of this application and
downgrading should not be relevant or incorporated into this
proposal. The B-3 zoning for the two lots is important as
it affects the front and back setbacks which can mak~ a
difference in the size and height criteria for building a
structure which could help in obtaining financing. The
staff report sets out very well'the four legal issues which
must be determined by Council, however, under item #2 which
deals with "change in circumstance" applicant believes there
is a classic" change of circumstance" in this case due to
the adoption of the Central Business District designation
and the inclusion of this property into the central business
core. The surrounding parcels have changed over.the years
from residential to business to commercial use.
Tamie Hukill, Executive Director of YWCA, stated her
support of new buildings and upgrading areas. However there
is concern as to the type of businesses allowed, under the
B-3 zone, i.e., taverns, liquor stores, amusement centers,
nightclubs, etc., which could have an adverse affect on both
the activities at the YWCA facility and the Shelter for
Battered Women. Ms. Hukill did support-the proposed
building of an office structure as the surrounding area
included existing facilities.
TAPE #458
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 8 of 13
Roy McGinnis, 2711 Maple Street, supported the proposal for
a B-3 zone with a written commitment from the applicant that
there intent is to build an-office structure. Also, he did
not understand why the Planning Commission downgraded the 4
lots to the west considering they were not part of the
original application.
Mr. Overson expressed concern as to what requirements .were
included to provide for parking as the area is already
impacted with three parking lots and overflowing into
residential area. Mr. Huff stated the applicant had
indicated intent to include some parking when the building
design is determined even though there are no parking
requirements for this area. -
Mrs. Long supported the B-3 zone, citing that the
surrounding area is already zoned commercial and that there
appears to be adequate parking in nearby lots.
#1882
Ms. Cottitan, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out the issue
is whether general conforma~Ce to Comprehensive Plan has
been met particularly in respect to the Highland
Neighborhood if you go to B-3 zone.
Don Pratt, Planning Director, explained that the property is
located in the Central Business District and the use applied
for under a B-3 zone is appropriate. However, when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted it included language which
designated the Highland area as having special
characteristics. Now, Council must interpret what they
intended to take place when "special characteristics of
Highland area" was stipulated, i.e., boundaries, etc.
Mr. Waibel questioned what Staff Report responded to, a B-2
recommendation or B-3 request. Mr. Pratt stated the Staff
Report responded to a B-3 request, however the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions supports a B-2 zone over a B-3 zone.
Mr. Pratt also stated that staff's professional opinion
supports the fact that a B-3 zone would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Staff referenced the Highland
district in the Staff Report unSer #4, and if Council
disagreed, changes could be made to indicate that the
property is compatible with adjacent B-3 properties and
acceptable. Mr. Waibel questioned zoning under the proposed
Zoning Ordinance that would take care of this situation.
Mr. Pratt stated there are two designations: (1) unique and
specific to the Highland district and that designation would
not permit the .project as planned under B-2 or B-3, or (2)
Professional Office Building, which would permit it. Mr.
Waibel asked what would happen to the zoning in this area if
the proposed Zoning Ordinance were adopted. Mr. Pratt
stated
if zoned B-2 or B-3 with Concomitant Agreement and
conditions which would say specifically an office building,
that would immediately translate into the proposed zoning
designation found in the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Also,
the property in question is shown under the Highland
District in the draft ordinance. Mr. Waibel clarified that
Council through their action, may be designating the
boundaries of the Highland District. Mr. Pratt responded
yes, effectively if not in theory.
M/S/F(Long/Crutcher) approve fezone lots 33 and 34 to B-3
zone in accordance with applicants request .
TAPE #458
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 9 of 13
#1901
Mr. Overson stated his strong position that a parking
requirement be included due to the already heavy impact on
the residential area.
Mr. Johnson questioned why the Highland District was
extended to include a couple parking lots, a bank and Eagles
facility. Mr. Overson stated there are several homes which
are part of the character of the Highland area. Mr. Johnson
pointed out that behind those homes is a parking lot and
businesses which would not be adding any character to the
area, therefore the Highland boundary could be moved not to
include these properties.
Mr. Waibel suggested that this be continued and ask staff to
come back with a proposal, either B-2 or B-3, with the
proper restrictions to maintain the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for that area.
Vote: In Favor: Long, Crutcher, Colvin
Oppose: Johnson, Oversqn, Waibel, Collins
Motion Failed.
M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) that Council continue this item for two
weeks and request Planning Department bring a proposal based
on the requirements discussed during-this hearing.
Mr. Johnson suggested an agreement which would put into the
new zoning category which would match the "office Building"
designation. Mr. Overson suggested that some parking
requirements be included. Mrs Lon~ stated there was not a
good reason to hold off rezoning just because a new proposed
Zoning Ordinance may be adopted at a later date and if
adopted all zones would change at ~>nce to something else.
Ms. Cottitan, Assistant City Attorney, cautioned Council not
to base their decision on a future Zoning Ordinance they
anticipate enacting. This does not mean that they can not
go back and look at some of the factors involved in the
development of the Comprehensive Plan and general idea of
the neighborhood. '
Vote:
In Favor:
Oppose:
Overson, Crutcher, Waibel, Collins,
Johnson, Colvin
Long
8B - PUBLIC HEARING - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT-3-8? CHANGE 5
PARCELS ON NORTH SIDE* OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN NAVAL AND
ROOSEVELT FROM RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY) TO COMMERCIAL,
APPLICANT: DAVE HILL BY PAZOOKI & McMENAMIN, OWNERS: G.
BENBENNICK, M. H. JOHNSON, V.L. DANEE, #AB87-167
On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 6 to
recommending that the Commercial :Comprehensive Plan Map
designation be extended to include the entire portion of the
block fronting on the north side of Sixth Street. This area
is bound by Naval Avenue, Roosevelt Avenue and the alley
between Sixth Street and Seventh Street. This action could
amend a portion of the block from residential 7-15 DU/Ac. to
Commercial.
The original application to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map
from Residential 7-15 DU/Ac. to Commercial included the area
between Naval Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue bound by Seventh
Street to the north and SiXth Street to the south.
President Hornina asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict
of Interest" question with all Council remaining seated.
TAPE #458
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 10 of 13
Don Pratt, Planning Director, gave the following explanation
how the next two agenda items relate to each other and how
they fit together: The applicant approached the Planning
Department several months ago to change the zoning of a
piece of property, subject of Item 8C. Discussions with
applicant yielded that the staff report recommendation would
most likely recommend denial as the proposed action was
contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by
City Council last year. Subsequent to that discussion,
applicant decided to request a Comp Plan Amendment prior to
reconsideration of the rezone. In so doing, if the Plan
Amendment was changed, it would not be beyond the realm that
a positive staff recommendation would follow. However, both
the Comp Plan Amendment and the request for rezone came in
at the same time, subsequently there is a staff
recommendation on both the Comp Plan change. and rezone.
However, the staff recommendation is based on the rezone as
it is not as it may or may not be changed to. If a request
for rezone is outside the Comprehensive Plan policies,
staff's position is to recommend denial. Therefore the
overall action for the two items have same affect, the
revision of the Comp Plan document requires a different
process than revision of a Zoning Ordinance. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of the Comp Plan Amendment as
requested and recommended a different configuration to the
Comp Plan Amendment, and approved the rezone as requested.
Mr. Johnson questioned even considering a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, noting that this may be setting a precedent. Mr.
Pratt stated there is an application to amend the Comp Plan
and a decision must be made on this, yes or no. Mr. Hornin~
asked why did applicant feel they had to file an application
for an amendment. Mr. Pratt stated that Planning staff told
the applicant that, in their opinion after reading and
understanding the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed
fezone would go in the face of many policies and the map
in the Comprehensive Plan and would most likely give a
negative staff recommendation on the rezo~e.
Ron Huff, Planning Department, gave a brief overview of
location of property, surrounding zones, and types of
surrounding businesses and residential area. The applicant
is desirous to bring in properties currently being used as
parking lot, used car lot and three houses into commercial
zoning area. Primary issue is encroachment of commercial
into a residential area to the north. As the staff
interprets the Comprehensive Plan, Seventh Street is
designated a residential street. Staff views the boundary
line along the alley separating residential to the north and
commercial to the south as a reasonable boundary,. making
Sixth Street a commercial street and Seventh Street
residential street on both sides. The Planning Commissions
Findings of Fact led to the conclusion that the proposal
would lead to the intrusion of commercial development into
what they consider to be a stable residential neighborhood.
This would not be consistent with 'intent of residential or
commercial goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Approval of this proposal might also have adverse economic
affects on neighborhood property values and could be
disruptive to present residents of the area and could
possibly conflict with goals and policies that promote
housing and neighborhood quality. Based on that the
Planning Commission decided to extend the commercial
designation across the southern end of block and leave
northern half in the residential designation.
TAPE #458
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 11 of 13
TAPE #459
Mr. Overson questioned the location and extent of
residential designation on Sixth Street. Mr. Huff stated
that the proposed area is at the east end of. a commercial
district, extending south along naval. The Comprehensive
Plan allows a commercial zone anywhere within the block in
question, as it is at the end of a commercial zone.
Mr. Dawkins asked if a commercial zone is approved could a
landscaping buffer 'be required to help separate the
commercial and residential area. Mr. Huff stated the
applicant has requested that half of his used car lot be
included in the B-3 zone as well as the three home sites.
Planning Commission reviewed this request and agreed to the
commercial designation on the back of lot, changing to B-2
rather than B-3, which allow the used car lot to expand
allow parking in back with the recommendation that rear
property would be adjacent to residential area and would
require a landscape buffer separating the parking lot from a
residential area.
William Palmar, Land Use Planner with Pazookie & Menamin,
representing applicant Dave Hill, provided an aerial
photograph and explained the applicant's desire to expanded
his used car lot to allow more parking and create an area
for car detailing. At the time contact was made with the
Planning Department it appeared there could be some
difficulty in obtaining the desired rezone due to the
Comprehensive Plan as adopted. At that time the applicant
decided to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to
making application for fezone. A brief overview of existing
B-2 and B-3 zones surrounding the subject property, were
described, with Mr. Palmer pointing out that the
Comprehensive Plan shows straight through a commercial
designation using the alley as a boundary. It was not clear
if there is a possibility to expand zoning in this area,
filling in the block, and that the Comprehensive Plan could
be interpreted to include not only the existing zoning but
also areas of logical expansion. In order to cure this
unclear issue, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was prepared.
The applicant has indicated sensitivity to the neighborhood
compatibility and willingness to 'accept the Planning
Commissions recommendations.
Dave Hill, owner of BaL Auto Sales, expressed his desire
and need to expand his business in a way that will not
infringe upon a residential area'and his desire to be a good
neighbor to surrounding properties.
#0422
M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Resolution #2171 amending
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Map in the block bounded by
Sixth Street, Naval Avenue, Seventh Street and Roosevelt
Avenue.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opp6se:
Colvin, Long, Collins, Horning,
Waibel, Crutcher, Dawkins, Overson
Johnson
8C - RKZONE 6 LOTS (2L,500 SQ. FT.) FRONTING ON 7TH STREET
WEST OF ROOSEVELT, APPLICANT: DAVE HILL BY PAZOOEI &
McMEMAMIN, OWNERS;: G. BENBKITNICE, M.H. JOHNSON, V.L-. DAN'ME,
#AB87-168
On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1
recommending conditional approval of the proposed fezone for
TAPE #459
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 12 of 13
the six parcels on Seventh Street consisting
approximately 21,000 square feet from R-1 to B-2.
of
Because this recommendation includes conditions, a
Concomitant Zoning Agreement will be necessary for approval
by the First Reading.
President Horninq asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict
of Interest" question with all Council remaining seated.
Ron Huff, Planning Department, stated requested rezone
includes lots 10,11,12,13 in B-3 district and lots 4 through
9 in B-3 district. Planning Commission is recommending
rezoning lots 4 through 9 to B-2 as opposed to B-3 and
leaving the southern portion of the block as zoned.
William Palmar, Land Use Planner for Pazookie & McMenamin,
representing Dave Hill,, G. Benbennick, M. H. Johnson and
V.L. Danek, stated applicant concurs with Planning
Commission recommendation since that will allow use of the
property desired by applicant. Also, applicant is agreeable
to providing a landscaped buffer as requested.
Mr. Johnson asked if a buffer zone is required when there
is no adjacent residential next to business district and is
across the street. Don Pratt, Planning Director, stated the
parking element of the Zoning Ordinance requires when a
business parking lot is adjacent to a residential area that
a hedge of a certain dimension be established.
Professionally an interpretation can be made either way as
to whether a piece of property across the street is adjacent
to or not adjacent to. In this case the owner has been
asked to offer an Concomitant agreement which would accept
the interpretation that this property is adjacent to a
residential district and he has accepted this so there would
not be an appeal as to interpretation requiring a buffer
zone. Mr. Johnson asked what if he did not put a parking
lot in as proposed. Mr. Pratt stated the B-2 zone has some
mitigating measures when adjacent to a residential zone and
the Concomitant Agreement does not include that
interpretation if it is not a parking lot, an interpretation
could include it but you could clear it up any appeal of
that interpretation by including other uses to require a
buffer zone. Mr. Johnson asked if the Concomitant Agreement
could inlcude requirement of a buffer zone for any B-2 use.
Mr. Pratt stated the procedure is for the applicant to offer
to include that in his reques[. Mrs. Long asked if the
Concomitant Agreement could include a specific type of
buffer zone that would not only be installed and maintained
to insure the growth and madntenance of trees to substantial
full growth. Mr. Pratt stated it is currently the
interpretation of the Planning Department that if a buffer
zone is required in a use area and if the vegetation ever
dies and ceases to be then that use is illegal an~
enforcement proceedings can be initiated to vacate or abate
the property, however, whether it is included as a specific
condition or you simply wish to enforce the law as written
today, there are not adequate enforcement personnel to
handle all that is required now.
#0732
M/S/C/(Collins/Long) Upon consideration of the Planning
Commission's recommendation and written and public
testimony, to 'approve the fezone subject to a Concomitant
Zoning Agreement incorporating the following condition: (1)
that the northeast boundaries of lots 4 through 9 on Seventh
TAPE #459
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 10, 1987
Page 13of 13
Street be considered contiguous to residential areas, and as
such, shall be required to include the buffering and
screening required in Ordinance' S978, Section 750(P).
Vote:
In Favor:
Oppose:
Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel,
Homing, Collins, Colvin, Long
Johnson
With no further business meeting ad3ourned at 9:10 p.m.
~~PROER HORNet~
K LM/SH/me
ccs:
Coun ~1
Normal Distribution
File/Vault
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
President